ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2012
Assessment of "non-recordable" electroretinograms by 9 Hz flicker stimulation under scotopic conditions.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Harmonization of Outcomes and Vision Endpoints in Vision Restoration Trials: Recommendations from the International HOVER Taskforce.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- Human flicker electroretinography using different temporal modulations at mesopic and photopic luminance levels.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2014Article
- Electroretinographic assessment of retinal function during acute exposure to normobaric hypoxia.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2014Article
- Rod and cone function in patients with KCNV2 retinopathy.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To refine methods of electroretinographical (ERG) recording for the analysis of low retinal potentials under scotopic conditions in advanced retinal degenerative diseases. Standard Ganzfeld ERG equipment (Diagnosys LLC, Cambridge, UK) was used in 27 healthy volunteers (mean age 28 ± SD 8.5 years) to define the stimulation protocol. The protocol was then applied in clinical routine and 992 recordings were obtained from patients (mean age 40.6 ± 18.3 years) over a period of 5 years. A blue stimulus with a flicker frequency of 9 Hz was specified under scotopic conditions to preferentially record rod-driven responses. A range of stimulus strengths (0.0000012-6.32 scot. cd s/m² and 6-14 ms flash duration) was tested for maximal amplitudes and interference between rods and cones. Analysis of results was done by standard Fourier Transformation and assessment of signal-to-noise ratio. Optimized stimulus parameters were found to be a time-integrated luminance of 0.012 scot. cd s/m² using a blue (470 nm) flash of 10 ms duration at a repetition frequency of 9 Hz. Characteristic stimulus strength versus amplitude curves and tests with stimuli of red or green wavelength suggest a predominant rod-system response. The 9 Hz response was found statistically distinguishable from noise in 38% of patients with otherwise non-recordable rod responses according to International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision standards. Thus, we believe this protocol can be used to record ERG potentials in patients with advanced retinal diseases and in the evaluation of potential treatments for these patients. The ease of implementation in clinical routine and of statistical evaluation providing an observer-independent evaluation may further facilitate its employment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.